Sunday, January 20, 2013

More on Slavery

One of the more blatant lies taught in American schools is that the
Civil War was fought over slavery. A reading of DiLorenzo's and
Hummel's books will disabuse you of that myth.

First of all,
four slave states fought on the side of the North--Maryland, Delaware,
Missouri, and Kentucky. They did not abolish slavery even after the war
ended. It took the Thirteenth Amendment passed by the radical, post-war
Congress.

Second, four secessionist states that in total had a greater population than the seven that seceded when Lincoln was elected,
most importantly Virginia, did not secede until Lincoln attacked the South after he was elected. The reason was
specifically Lincoln's violent imposition of the federal government on
the secessionist states.

Third, Lincoln
repeatedly said that he did not aim to repeal slavery. In fact, he said
that he favored a constitutional amendment that would have prohibited
the abolition of slavery. He said this repeatedly.

Fourth, on
November 7, 1861 The London Times wrote an editorial expressing its and
the British people's dislike of slavery. Britain at that time was the
leading abolitionist nation in the world, for it had abolished slavery
a few decades earlier. Nevertheless, the Times editorialized, it was
eminently clear that the Civil War was not being fought about slavery.
As Lincoln repeatedly stated and made clear through direct action, the
war's aim was to keep the union united. This was contrary to the aims
of the American founders, and directly contradictory to Jefferson's statement in the Declaration of Independence that just government is
derived FROM THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED. As a result, The London Times
opined, most British citizens favored the South over the North because the North's war was an
effort to enforce a government on a people who did not consent; The
Times held that the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery.

Fifth, many leading abolitionists, including William Lloyd Garrison,
had for years advocated NORTHERN SECESSION as a way TO END SLAVERY. In
other words, leading opponents of slavery had believed all along
that secession would by itself end slavery. Rather than give this idea a
chance, Lincoln chose to kill 500,000 to 800,000 people, maim a million people, and conquer the
South, forcing a tyranny on them.

Why might secession have
ended slavery? Because the Fugitive Slave
Law was a key impediment to slaves' escaping, and it would have been
repealed with secession. The result would have been that slaves could
escape and not be returned. That is what happened in Delaware.
By the end of the war virtually all the slaves had left to enlist and
could not be returned. Rather than let slavery die naturally, Lincoln,
who repeatedly said he favored continuation of slavery, fought a war to suppress the South and
prevent them from seceding.

In sum, your belief that the Civil
War was fought over slavery and that disagreement with the Civil War in
some way suggests agreement with slavery is based on bad education,
lies, misinformation, and propaganda that you probably learned in an
American school. You did not get a good education, and I didn't either.

In response to two political activists:

Dear _________ :

I have decided to disassociate myself from political
activity. Political activity requires some concern and common ground with
the polity and the citizenry. Having just read DiLorenzo’s Lincoln
Unmasked and, worse, Jeffrey Hummel’s Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving
Free Men, I have concluded that the United States is based on the false
premise that a government can be derived from the barrel of a gun;
consequently, the American people and the American form of government are
immoral; focusing concern or political emotion on them is
misguided.

The developments that occurred after the Civil War are a
function of a people bent on violence, theft, and self-aggrandizement;
the establishment of the Federal Reserve Bank and Wall Street’s ongoing
economic rape of the American people is a symptom of a deeper, underlying
immorality on the American people’s part. All con men know that it is
greed that makes a mark susceptible to their cons. Americans are those
greedy marks.

Americans have been satisfied with the violent compulsion that
Lincoln imposed on the South (he did not oppose slavery, and four slave states
fought on Lincoln’s side, which we are not told in in pro-government,
progressive schools). More generally, America is not a nation based on
premises of freedom and consent of the governed; as a result, I do not support
the current form of government, and I do not care what happens to an American
people willing to use violence to impose their will on others. I
have zero interest in conservatism, in Republicans, in establishment
candidates, or in opposing Andrew Cuomo with other, equal candidates.

Google Custom Search

Pages

Mitchell Langbert

About Me

I have researched and written about employee benefit issues and in my previous life was a corporate benefits administrator. I am currently associate professor of business at Brooklyn College. I hold a Ph.D. from the Columbia University Graduate School of Business, an MBA from UCLA and an AB from Sarah Lawrence College. I am working on a project involving public policy. I blog on academic and political topics.